Maybe I'm just a gringo talking out of my ass. My knowledge on rugby in South America is limited (as Victor can attest to) and primarily focused on Colombia, so I'm hella biased.

Come on Tobar, you know much more than most people! I do think Colombia can reach Paraguay's level soon because Colombia is doing it right focusing a lot in junior rugby, but if Paraguay turns pro now it will take more time for Colombia. Paraguay has stronger rugby culture inside their clubs, with close ties do Argentina and therefore people with good knowlodge to make things going on.

He said the South American league will have 10 teams: Argentina (4), Uruguay (2), Brazil (2), Chile (1) and Paraguay (1). He also said the UAR will open a tender process within the provinces to sell the franchises.

Ariel Mammana, the 2nd Vice Chairman of the UAR, have said in an interview in Córdoba yesterday that:- the South American Professional League by franchises is still incipient and they are working to begining to run in 2020.- the ten teams could be two from Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil; and one from Paraguay, Colombia, México and Chile.- the players will be professionals and the tournament will be in the first semester.- the venues (in Argentina) will emerge from a tender. No province has priority.- the UAR will be the owner of the 51% of the franchise, and the other 49% will be from the partner and will be tendered.- in Uruguay the partners of the URU will be the clubs Peñarol and Nacional.- around 100 players will be involved in Argentina.- each franchise will have 35 players and there will be a minimum that must be from the country of origin.- is a possibility that franchises from other countries contract Argentine players. For this reason the hundred of players that could play this League.- every year 200 Argentine players go abroad and only return 80. Most of them from the UAR's academies.- all those professional players could be absorbed by the League.- local competition must be rescheduled. The local tournaments could start in March, and be very short (about ten rounds), and that they classify to a great Torneo del Interior of 20 rounds that allows to level the competition with the URBA. Then they should cross each other with the clubs from Buenos Aires.

That is what I understood. All these are just preliminary ideas.

(Diario Perfil Córdoba, domingo 13/5/18)I couldn't find the note on the Internet. But I took a picture of the article.

He said the South American league will have 10 teams: Argentina (4), Uruguay (2), Brazil (2), Chile (1) and Paraguay (1). He also said the UAR will open a tender process within the provinces to sell the franchises.

Ariel Mammana, the 2nd Vice Chairman of the UAR, have said on an interview in Córdoba yesterday that:- the South American Professional League by franchises is still incipient and they are working to begining to run in 2020.- the ten teams could be two from Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil; and one from Paraguay, Colombia, México and Chile.- the players will be professionals and the tournament will be on the first semester.- the venues (in Argentina) will emerge from a tender. No province has priority.- the UAR will be the owner of the 51% of the franchise, and the other 49% will be from the partner and will be tendered.- in Uruguay the partners of the URU will be the clubs Peñarol and Nacional.- around 100 players will be involved in Argentina.- each franchise will have 35 players and there will be a minimum that must be from the country of origin.- is a possibility that franchises from other countries contract Argentine players. For this reason the hundred of players that could play this League.- every year 200 Argentine players go abroad and only return 80. Most of them from the UAR's academies.- all those professional players could be absorbed by the League.- local competition must be rescheduled. The local tournaments could start in March, and be very short (about ten rounds), and that they classify to a great Torneo del Interior of 20 rounds that allows to level the competition with the URBA. Then they should cross each other with the clubs from Buenos Aires.

That is what I understood. All these are just preliminary ideas.

(Diario Perfil Córdoba, domingo 13/5/18)I couldn't find the note on the Internet. But I took a picture of the article.

wow!

1. dramatic shift for colombia and mexico, since they were supposed to be given a franchise in 5-10 years... medellin makes sense for colombia, probably cdmx for mexico but maybe veracruz or campeche because of the longer rugby history there...

2. futbol teams will have some influence, interesting... it makes some sense because futbol clubs go beyond the pitch for latin americans... for example liga mx femenil is successful because they are seen as directly connected to the traditional team... perhaps same will apply for these rugby teams, though only in uruguay has this been confirmed... LigaMX teams have money for this, perhaps SuperLiga Argentina/Liga Aguila teams too?

3. interesting for domestic player limit... such would mean weaker nations will suffer more at the start... though definitely will be helped by argentine mercenaries... but it is a necessary evil to raise rugby interest in nations like paraguay, colombia, mexico etc

4. argentina is the "france of the americas"... they have big plans in the 2020s to increase profile of rugby in the continents... and they definitely have the most resources/money/ambition/reason... they do much more than all blacks or england, admirable efforts from los pumas...

5. latin america overall is a huge market for world rugby to break into, and probably most fertile

hmmmmm.... most of what he says confirmed what we were already saying. The difference is that he put Mexico and Colombia again in the table, while previous information said 4 Argentines and no Colombians or Mexicans in the first year.

thatrugbyguy wrote:What’s a bit puzzling to me is Mexico. Mexico would be a more natural fit for MLR given its location. Why would the South American League want a team that far away?

culture, culture, culture

mexican teams used to compete in libertadores and copa america, not to mention culturally speaking mexico seems a bit more closer to south america than say, the us or canada less so... and of course the linguistic background is shared too...

in fact i don't think there's ever been a pan north america league in any sport... or i haven't done my research right... i do recall liga mx tried to expand into los angeles and san francisco in the 90s and this even had some support from the ussf but fifa prevented this from occurring... mlb tried moving the montreal expos into monterrey but this never occurred either... in fact i think mlb always wanted a team in mexico and still might...

anyway, with super rugby and pro14 existing, long distance travel in rugby is not exactly an odd thing

victorsra wrote:hmmmmm.... most of what he says confirmed what we were already saying. The difference is that he put Mexico and Colombia again in the table, while previous information said 4 Argentines and no Colombians or Mexicans in the first year.

Having only two Argentine teams makes a little more sense than having four in my opinion. At least initially. More for easing them into the local scene without upsetting the clubs too much. Also for talent purposes. There were suggestions that Argentine players would also feature in other franchises but their overall quality would begin to be eroded if four Argentine teams entered first up. This way there would be more parity in the talent distribution leading to a more even competition from the start.

Honestly, keeping track of the SA 6Ns I think Colombia are proving they would be deserving of a place at the table in this competition. Don't know about Mexico.

thatrugbyguy wrote:What’s a bit puzzling to me is Mexico. Mexico would be a more natural fit for MLR given its location. Why would the South American League want a team that far away?

culture, culture, culture

mexican teams used to compete in libertadores and copa america, not to mention culturally speaking mexico seems a bit more closer to south america than say, the us or canada less so... and of course the linguistic background is shared too...

in fact i don't think there's ever been a pan north america league in any sport... or i haven't done my research right... i do recall liga mx tried to expand into los angeles and san francisco in the 90s and this even had some support from the ussf but fifa prevented this from occurring... mlb tried moving the montreal expos into monterrey but this never occurred either... in fact i think mlb always wanted a team in mexico and still might...

anyway, with super rugby and pro14 existing, long distance travel in rugby is not exactly an odd thing

I think the MLS were looking at a Mexican based team at one stage as well but were blocked by FIFA as well. Pretty sure the NFL likes the idea of a Mexico City franchise but I cannot see that being a reality.

thatrugbyguy wrote:What’s a bit puzzling to me is Mexico. Mexico would be a more natural fit for MLR given its location. Why would the South American League want a team that far away?

culture, culture, culture

mexican teams used to compete in libertadores and copa america, not to mention culturally speaking mexico seems a bit more closer to south america than say, the us or canada less so... and of course the linguistic background is shared too...

in fact i don't think there's ever been a pan north america league in any sport... or i haven't done my research right... i do recall liga mx tried to expand into los angeles and san francisco in the 90s and this even had some support from the ussf but fifa prevented this from occurring... mlb tried moving the montreal expos into monterrey but this never occurred either... in fact i think mlb always wanted a team in mexico and still might...

anyway, with super rugby and pro14 existing, long distance travel in rugby is not exactly an odd thing

I think the MLS were looking at a Mexican based team at one stage as well but were blocked by FIFA as well. Pretty sure the NFL likes the idea of a Mexico City franchise but I cannot see that being a reality.

it seems every major city will receive an nfl franchise...

anyway, i seem to recall world rugby targeting colombia and mexico to grow rugby, and i imagine this is where the money will come from... brazil was also a major world rugby target and as we've seen it's been quite a success...

I think 8 teams and not 10 make sense, with 2 Argentines only and none from Colombia and Mexico. They are too far away and we don't know how sustainable this league is. Besides Mexico has done very little in rugby until now, while Colombia has just arrive. Give an 8-teams-league 2 years to see how things work and start thinking about Colombia, Mexico and more Argentines.

thatrugbyguy wrote:What’s a bit puzzling to me is Mexico. Mexico would be a more natural fit for MLR given its location. Why would the South American League want a team that far away?

culture, culture, culture

mexican teams used to compete in libertadores and copa america, not to mention culturally speaking mexico seems a bit more closer to south america than say, the us or canada less so... and of course the linguistic background is shared too...

in fact i don't think there's ever been a pan north america league in any sport... or i haven't done my research right... i do recall liga mx tried to expand into los angeles and san francisco in the 90s and this even had some support from the ussf but fifa prevented this from occurring... mlb tried moving the montreal expos into monterrey but this never occurred either... in fact i think mlb always wanted a team in mexico and still might...

anyway, with super rugby and pro14 existing, long distance travel in rugby is not exactly an odd thing

I think the MLS were looking at a Mexican based team at one stage as well but were blocked by FIFA as well. Pretty sure the NFL likes the idea of a Mexico City franchise but I cannot see that being a reality.

it seems every major city will receive an nfl franchise...

anyway, i seem to recall world rugby targeting colombia and mexico to grow rugby, and i imagine this is where the money will come from... brazil was also a major world rugby target and as we've seen it's been quite a success...

Mexico is definitely on WR hit list as are Brazil. Two relatively large economies and populations to grow into. I think Colombia was in their sights but not at the level of the other two but have done an amazing job with the resources provided to them and thus have been rewarded by WR with extra funding and attention. So, they seem to have forced themselves into WR targeted Sth American nations.

I do wish they'd give Chile a bit more attention as well. Another strong regional economy with a solid population.

victorsra wrote:I think 8 teams and not 10 make sense, with 2 Argentines only and none from Colombia and Mexico. They are too far away and we don't know how sustainable this league is. Besides Mexico has done very little in rugby until now, while Colombia has just arrive. Give an 8-teams-league 2 years to see how things work and start thinking about Colombia, Mexico and more Argentines.

Perhaps a compromise to start could be the recruitment of both Colombian and Mexican players into the each of the 8 potential teams. Never hurts to widen the talent pool.

ive read that chilean rugby union is infamous for its infighting, incompetence and stagnation... as a result they have fallen behind despite a long history of the sport being played there... so they must have done a lot of housework to get a pro team

mexican teams used to compete in libertadores and copa america, not to mention culturally speaking mexico seems a bit more closer to south america than say, the us or canada less so... and of course the linguistic background is shared too...

in fact i don't think there's ever been a pan north america league in any sport... or i haven't done my research right... i do recall liga mx tried to expand into los angeles and san francisco in the 90s and this even had some support from the ussf but fifa prevented this from occurring... mlb tried moving the montreal expos into monterrey but this never occurred either... in fact i think mlb always wanted a team in mexico and still might...

anyway, with super rugby and pro14 existing, long distance travel in rugby is not exactly an odd thing

I understand from a cultural perspective, it's more the logistics and financial perspective that concerns me. Originally it looked like South American league was to be a group of teams all within a few hours flight of each other, which make sense for a new league to do. But Mexico is what, 2-3 times the further away? Let me be clear I'm not against Mexico getting teams in a professional league eventually, it just seems like the sensible option is to make sure the teams in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Paraguay are strong for the first few years before gambling with a long distant team from Mexico. If they can figure out a model that is financially workable then I guess that's fine, but I just don't want to see clubs potentially get into financial trouble that early.

victorsra wrote:I think 8 teams and not 10 make sense, with 2 Argentines only and none from Colombia and Mexico. They are too far away and we don't know how sustainable this league is. Besides Mexico has done very little in rugby until now, while Colombia has just arrive. Give an 8-teams-league 2 years to see how things work and start thinking about Colombia, Mexico and more Argentines.

I agree with this. Give the league 2-3 years before we consider expanding to Mexico and Columbia. As a compromise perhaps an arrangement similar to what MLR are doing with New York and Ontario Arrows could be arrange where the Mexican and Columbian teams are given a 12 month trial period playing exhibition games against the South American pro teams to see the financial viability of their inclusion. This new league needs to work long term and they need to be careful about doing too much too soon.

it seems in general the south america league needs to start off rather small... mexican and colombian teams are very exciting (especially the money in those nations) but they are barely getting established in international rugby... mexico hasn't even faced los yacares in their history! neither have they beaten colombia... and only recently has colombia looked competitive with the southern cone...

Wouldn't both Uruguay teams likely be out of Montevideo? And surely Tucumán would be one of the possible Argentine teams? It is exciting though. WE'll finally have professional leagues in every continent. We really only need to have something established in Africa outside of Super rugby and Currie Cup.

I think a professional team involving Mexico is still a long way off, I would say 3 - 5 years in the offing. Having been there in January as an observer I can see there is a lot of work that still needs doing at the base of the Pyramid and set solid foundations. Professional team should be once a solid foundation has been set and I don't see it, a lot of work needs to be done in practical terms.

Yes there are a lot of noise and Media releases etc but what I see on the ground is more work needs doing. they need to concentrate and tighten and develop the Domestic League. Also Culturally Mexicans consider themselves North Americans ( as in the continent) forced them into South America competition not sure if that is the way to go. I would like to see them in North American Competition.

You don't need Mexico for a professional league there is enough depth in South America and Countries with greater Rugby Culture that have been playing for a long time.

Last edited by Thomas on Mon, 14 May 2018, 09:37, edited 1 time in total.

Gen Santa wrote:ive read that chilean rugby union is infamous for its infighting, incompetence and stagnation... as a result they have fallen behind despite a long history of the sport being played there... so they must have done a lot of housework to get a pro team

I've just had a quick look at WR/IRB year in reviews which have the player number maps, Chile has only gone from about 16,000 players to 20,000 players from 2007 to 2017, whereas Argentina's gone from near 80,000 to 145,000. Uruguay 4.5k to 37.5k, Colombia from 2,000 to 113,000 (I presume that the majority are Get into rugby sessions). Brazil from 3,000 to 185,000 (ditto?). Peru from 560 to 17,000. All across South America it's a story of pretty explosive growth, bar Chile and Paraguay (who were 2nd and 3rd= biggest on the continent to last, and 3rd last (bar Costa Rica)). Hopefully their longer rugby tradition will enable them to be competitive in the SA Pro league, which in turn should drive more interest.

A general rule is that from 2007 to 2017 most non-T1 unions across the world have grown somewhere between 8 to 15 times their original size in terms of total players, which underlines Paraguay's and Chile's stagnation.